The battle lines are familiar by now. Gay marriage, proponents say, is a constitutionally protected right. Opponents point out that overturning the ban would subvert the will of Texas voters, who passed an amendment to the Texas Constitution outlawing same-sex unions in 2005.

From a legal standpoint, both positions are perfectly reasonable. Morally speaking, you know where you stand.

Still, it's worth addressing a particularly ludicrous bit of fear-mongering coming from Texas Values, the state lobbying arm of the religious right. Yesterday, President Jonathan Saenz sent out an email warning supporters that the state's most important political document is in grave danger:

The very survival of our Texas Constitution is at stake. That's an extreme claim, but I'm not overstating a word--the threat justifies alarm. A legal battering ram is smashing against the walls of our founding document, threatening a breach that would unleash a tide of liberal, politically-correct agendas to sweep away our most cherished freedoms.

You see, "gay marriage" is about way more than wedding rings and marriage licenses--even worse than a legal stamp of approval for homosexual relationships. Those are bad enough, but please see the total threat. If its definition of marriage can be treated like a soiled tissue to be discarded at will, then the Texas Constitution means nothing. Our rights as Texans will just be ink on some aging parchment.

Saenz then trots out various hypotheticals (churches sued for refusing to marry same-sex couples; bakers targeted for refusing to provide cakes for gay weddings; etc.) as proof of the disaster that a pro-gay marriage ruling on Wednesday will bring.

There's a problem with this argument, and it has nothing to do with the Freudian implications of Saenz's warning that recently gay-married Houston Mayor Annise Parker is "forc[ing] her lifestyle down your throat and mine." It's that the Texas Constitution is a joke.

Well, there's a lot of important stuff in there. But the notion that it's some sacrosanct piece of political literature, perfect and immutable, is absurd. It's been amended 483 times. It's also too long, was designed to address the challenges Texans face 138 years ago, and has deep structural flaws that hamper effective governance.

The worst the federal judge can do is invalidate one single amendment that's all of eight years old. In other words, no constitutions are at risk of destruction on Wednesday. Just the entire institution of marriage, a few souls and the very fabric of humanity.

The only reason Saenz should be worried out churches getting sued for refusing to perform gay weddings is due to the damage he and people like him have done to the concept of separation of church and state. Its a two way street, they cry that they cannot always inject religion into politics, however are the first to scream when there is a "rumor" that politics (which they do not agree with) might be injected into their church. Basically the same concept that should prevent you from pushing your will on others, protects you from the will of others.

As for the effects on the "value" of my marriage, there are none. First my marriage is not a marketable security. Second, for gay marriage to diminish its value, the new option would have to have a perceived greater value. Finally, the institution of marriage has already taken plenty of hits from man/women unions, it cannot get worse.

Leave marriage to the churches. Many other countries perform civil ceremonies in addition to the church ceremony. A judge declares a legal union, while the church declares a spiritual. If church is not your thing, you do not do the church part, yet retain all of the legal rights. Different denominations have different thoughts on the matter, however within that denomination is the forum to have these discussions. Many denominations have burned up a lot of capital by debating the legal aspects of certain issues.

Eric, please go study Texas history just a little bit. There is a reason why the Texas Constitution must be amended in order to effect significant legal change.

The current state constitution was set up in reaction to some of the excesses of Reconstruction, principally to avoid, or prevent, the legislature from passing unpopular laws. It was set up this way to ensure that Texas government remained responsible to the populous. It is also why the Legislature meets for only 140 days in odd numbered years for the regular session.

The amendment requirements requires a popular vote in order to effect the change.

I think it entirely appropriate that we have a state constitution amendment in order to allow "gay marriage". That way we can see if this is truly a popular change or merely the will of a politically strong organization.

Before anyone gets after me, think about it for a minute. How would you feel about a measure being enacted that you think is inappropriate by the Legislature?

"Perfectly reasonable" my ass, Eric. Popular votes in one state do not invalidate the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution. The constitution can only be amended after ratification by 3/4 of the states.

While we're on the subject, it looks like another "Gays in the Military" battle. Only this time it's the NFL. I'm hearing the same crap from homophobes. Gay people in the military have shown that they're professionals, there to do a job well, like everyone else.

@everlastingphelps By definition, the courts' doors are still on the front of the building. The courts are themselves, constitutionally-endowed to interpret the laws of the land. Using courts can deprive the victors a mandate, which is important, but they are not using any backdoor. Your use of that word is, like most everything you post, loaded and intellectually dishonest.

@Montemalone Leave it up to Texas Republicans to take a precious word like "Constitution" and pervert it so that it's used to bludgeon people of color, non-Christians, immigrants, the poor, and the LBGT community.

" that provides rights and benefits and responsibilities for 2 people who wish to join together." what you fail to understand is that governments for centuries have defined who can and can not marry. forcing change through the courts does not solve the problem but rather it exasperates it. Just look at the abortion issue.

marriage is a privilege defined by the government ie the people. Work through the legislative process to effect the change

@pak152 - No, Loving v. Virginia ruled that marriage is a basic human right. Also, federal courts are now ruling that state prohibitions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S.Constitution. Any Texas case that successfully reaches federal court will in all likelihood lead to invalidating any local prohibition. Nevada just abandoned a court fight it acknowledged it was not likely to win for just that reason.

@mavdog@everlastingphelps Right, the 13th amendment had NOTHING to do with ending Jim Crow. Whatever, fantasy man. You realize that everyone reading this knows that you are an idiot, right? Do you at least understand THAT much?

@mavdog@everlastingphelps Every single court decision striking down aspects of Jim Crow was based on the 13th Amendment, not some sort of extra-constitutional shenanigans. You would know that if you had read the article, or, you know, were educated.